3 ms·

and articles from daringfireball.net have zero insight while being biased to extremes. Why do people read it? Probably because most people search for appr

and articles from daringfireball.net have zero insight while being biased to extremes. Why do people read it? Probably because most people search for approval, maybe? Perfect example of the comment upvoted by people searching for approval. Articles from daringfireball.net have zero insight? Biased to extremes? Really? Did you even bother to read any of the articles? if you want to use the Android trademark and have access to its marketplace, you have to play by Google's rules That's exactly the point of the article: Google acts this way but claims otherwise.

bad_user 16y ago
> That's exactly the point of the article: Google acts this way but claims otherwise. What are you talking about? Both the compatibility definition (CDD) and the compatibility test-suite (CTS) are public ... http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html Devices that are Android-compatible (by the definition above) have to license the Android Market client software separately, complying with the terms available here: http://www.android.com/market/terms.html http://www.android.com/market/terms.html The Android branding is subject to these rules: http://www.android.com/branding.html http://www.android.com/branding.html Here is were they can twist your arm so to speak. Nothing prevents you from taking their OS, modify it and selling it with your own devices ... surely certain Google properties like the Marketplace will be out of reach, but that was known from version 1.0. So where does Google claim otherwise?